Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443

    S.C.: Sen. Larry Martin Says Nation Needs Federal E-Verify

    Sen. Larry Martin Says Nation Needs Federal E-Verify

    September 2, 2011

    By RAJU CHEBIUM

    Gannett Washington Bureau

    WASHINGTON -- The author of South Carolina's employment verification law urged Congress on Friday to pass legislation requiring businesses to use the federal E-Verify system to check the legal status of employees.

    State Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, also urged President Barack Obama to reassure voters that that only citizens and legal immigrants will be welcome in the American workplace.
    As he unveils his new jobs plan next week, Obama must "take the steps necessary to ensure that we have a legal workforce," Martin said.

    "We must absolutely accommodate legal immigration," he said. "That's always been our policy in this country. But when you have rampant illegal immigration ... it impacts our economy."
    Supporters of E-Verify want the White House to urge congressional Democrats to support legislation by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, that would require most businesses to use the system.

    But the White House won't go along unless that's part of a broader effort to improve the nation's troubled immigration system.

    Though the administration supports E-Verify, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she doesn't favor passing standalone E-Verify measures.

    "E-Verify can and should be part of immigration reform," Napolitano told Gannett Washington Bureau during a recent breakfast organized by The Christian Science Monitor. "E-Verify in and of itself does not solve all the problems we have with existing law. President Obama, myself and others from both parties have said ultimately Congress will have to take up the ... whole system."

    She refused to say if she'd urge Obama to veto legislation to expand E-Verify.

    Neither Congress nor the White House have focused on immigration reform this year and analysts don't expect lawmakers to take up that issue until after the 2012 presidential elections.

    E-Verify allows authorized users to tap into federal employment verification databases online.

    Critics say the system continues to be plagued by an unacceptably high error rate, though government auditors concluded last year that its reliability has vastly improved in recent years.

    South Carolina and 17 other states require employers to use E-Verify, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

    There's no such requirement in federal law. The Department of Homeland Security says nearly 240,000 employers who signed up to use the system submitted more than 16 million inquiries last year.

    In May, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Arizona's E-Verify law.

    South Carolina adopted its first E-Verify law in 2008.

    Martin updated that law and folded it into a broader -- and more controversial -- immigration bill written by state Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, which Gov. Nikki Haley signed into law in June.Patterned after a similar immigration law in Arizona, the Grooms bill would allow police to question suspected illegal immigrants about their legal status. It also calls for creating a $1.3 million law enforcement unit to crack down on illegal immigrants.

    The South Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of other civil rights groups have announced plans to sue to block the Grooms-authored law, which will take effect in January.

    www.wltx.com
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member Mayflowerchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    543
    Does Senator Martin support the pre-emption clause in Lamar Smith's bill & it's very high standard of evidence making it high-nigh impossible to prosecute?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •